Three briefs filed opposing the LGBT agenda. November 9, 2017 (Read briefs at links below) Between July and September of this year, our firm has filed three amicus curiae briefs opposing the LGBT agenda. The first involved an EEOC complaint by a homosexual skydiver against a former employer. The second involved a homosexual couple seeking to force a Christian baker to make them a wedding cake. And the third involved a so-called "transgender boy" (biological girl) seeking to gain access to the boys' bathrooms at her public school. Zarda v. Altitude Express Second Circuit (July 26, 2017) In late July we filed an amicus brief in Zarda v. Altitude Express, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. There, the estate of a homosexual skydiving instructor sued his former employer, alleging that he was fired because of his sexual orientation. Of course, federal law prohibits only employment discrimination on the basis of "sex" — saying nothing about "sexual orientation." Our brief first countered the underlying assumption that the homosexual skydiver was fired because he was homosexual. In fact, as the record shows, his employer and his coworkers had known his sexual orientation for years. He was fired, then, not for being "gay" — but for continually making inappropriate remarks to customers about his "gayness." When customers finally complained about his flamboyant oversharing and indiscriminate chit-chat, his employer was forced to take action. Additionally, our brief argued that "sex" and "sexual orientation" are simply not the same. The "attraction" between a man and a man is not "identical" to the attraction between a man and a woman — and thus the two pairs are not "similarly situated." And men cannot, as Lamda Legal argued, do "exactly the same things" with each other as men do with women. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission U.S. Supreme Court (September 7, 2017) Then, in early September, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, defending the rights of a Christian baker. When a homosexual couple asked him to bake their wedding cake, he told them he would sell them any other type of baked goods, but could not participate in the celebration of their sinful union. After "dropping the F bomb" as they walked out the door, the homosexuals filed a complaint with a non judicial Colorado agency, which prosecuted the baker. In our brief, we reminded the Supreme Court of its promise in Obergefell, that those who hold religious beliefs opposing gay marriage would be protected — a promise that was not borne out in this case. Next, we took issue with the idea that a small, family run bakery is a "place of public accommodation" under the law. Unfortunately, the lawyers for the bakery had admitted that it was, without giving the matter serious thought. However, as we pointed out, the common law concept of a "public accommodation" was strictly limited to businesses providing necessities to travelers — and certainly did not apply to every single business that serves the public. There was no necessity about obtaining a wedding cake from this particular Christian baker, as the homosexuals quickly found another bakery willing to cater to them. Rather, this was a political case brought by radical activists with a coercive and corrosive political agenda — to make all Americans bow down on the altar of sodomy. Kenosha v. Whitaker U.S. Supreme Court (September 27, 2017) Finally, at the end of September, we filed an amicus brief in support of a petition to the Supreme Court in Kenosha v. Whitaker, opposing attempts by a so-called "transgender" high school student to obtain access to bathrooms of the opposite sex. The courts below had granted an injunction against the school district, on the grounds the plaintiff (a 17 year old girl) was feeling suicidal about not being able to use her bathroom of choice. As our brief pointed out, no reasonable person would become suicidal because of this. Nevertheless, transgender plaintiffs continue to play the "suicide card" in cases across the country, attempting to blackmail judges to give them what they want so that they do not kill themselves. As our brief pointed out, suicidal tendencies in transgender persons have nothing to do with the bathroom policies of a public school board. Instead, numerous studies have found that those who suffer with "gender dysphoria" almost universally are diagnosable with additional serious mental health problems. For example, boys who think they are girls also tend to have other problems with reality. Some even sincerely think they are wizards, wolves, and witches — or want to cut off their own arms and legs, or gouge out their own eyes to match the way they "feel" inside. Courts simply cannot replace the judicial bench with a psychiatrist couch, and pander to the delusions of the delusional. Our brief urged the Supreme Court to hear the case to reject the notion of lower federal court judges that, when deciding cases, they can simply "forget about the law" and do whatever their personal policy preferences dictate. While this case involved a little girl pretending to be a little boy, the lower courts' rulings are not so limited. As we pointed out, there is nothing to stop a young woman from claiming to be a young man, so that she can spend a little "quality time" with her beau in the boys' restroom, or the varsity boys' lacrosse team from deciding en masse that they are all girls, and barging into the girls' locker room while the cheerleading squad is changing clothes. Simply, redefining the word "sex" from being a biological constant to a self-declared abstract notion will open a pandora's box of wide reaching and unpredictable consequences for American society. We have no doubt that the "LGBT" assault on traditional and Christian values will continue, with ferocious intensity. The only question is if and when the Supreme Court will step in to say enough is enough. Copyright © 2017 William J. Olson, P.C. All rights reserved.